Elementary students’ and teacher’s interactions during out-of-classroom activities

Elementary Students’ and Teacher’s Interactions During Out-of-Classroom Activities

by

Bruno de Oliveira Jayme

Bachelor & Licentiate, Universidade Católica de Goiás, Brazil, 2001

A Thesis submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in Interdisciplinary Studies

©Bruno de Oliveira Jayme, 2008 University of Victoria

All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author.

ii

Elementary Students’ and Teacher’s Interactions During Out-of-Classroom Activities by

Bruno de Oliveira Jayme

Bachelor & Licentiate, Universidade Católica de Goiás, Brazil, 2001

Supervisory Committee

Dr. Wolff-Michael Roth (Department of Curriculum and Instruction) (Co) Supervisor

Dr. Nancy Turner (School of Environmental Studies) (Co) Supervisor

Dr. Eileen Van der Flier-Keller (School of Earth and Ocean Sciences) Departmental Member

Dr. David Zandvliet (Simon Fraser University) External Member

iii Supervisory Committee

_____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Wolff-Michael Roth (Department of Curriculum and Instruction)

_____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Nancy Turner (School of Environmental Studies)

______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Eileen Van der Flier-Keller (School of Earth and Ocean Sciences)

______________________________________________________________________ Dr. David Zandvliet (Simon Fraser University)

ABSTRACT

Using interaction analysis and discourse analysis as a method of data analysis, I take a cultural-historical approach to explore teacher-student and student-student interactions during out-of-classroom science projects. The database is composed of my fieldnotes, videotaped science fieldtrips, and videotaped computer sessions where students worked collaboratively to produce science digital videos, highlighting their experiences during science fieldtrips. This thesis is formed by three studies I conducted with elementary students from a public school in British Columbia, Canada. These three independent and yet interrelated studies have implications for science learning and instruction in general. More specifically, this thesis contributes to the understanding of student-student and teacher-student interactions during collaborative work when they are engaged in science activities that occurred out of the classroom settings, such as fieldtrips and in the

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Supervisory Committee ii Abstract iii Table of Contents iv List of Figures ix Acknowledgments x CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION 1 Autobiography 3

The Pacific CRYSTAL Project and my Contribution to the “Big Picture” 6

Definition of Fieldtrips 8

Outline of the Three Studies 8

Integration of the Three Studies 10

CHAPTER II – BACKGROUND 13

Important Definitions 14

The Research Site: Blueberry Field Elementary School 15

v

My Engagement with Mr. MacBeth’s Students 17

Data Collection 18

Getting ready for a fieldtrip 19

The day of the fieldtrips 20

After the fieldtrips 20

Data Preparation 21

Theoretical Framework 22

Interaction Analysis: A Collaborative Method 28

Transcriptions 30

Why interaction analysis? 30

Discourse Analysis: The Context Matters 31

Theoretical principles of discourse analysis 35

Why discourse analysis? 35

Why interaction analysis and discourse analysis “partnership”? 36

Credibility of qualitative research 36

CHAPTER III – EGOMORPHISM IN SIMPLE WORDS: DISCURSIVE

PEDAGOGICAL ARTIFACT IN/FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION 39

Anthropomorphism During Science Lessons 41

Egomorphism vs. Anthropomorphism 42

vi

Egomorphism mediating discussion about marine environment conservation 46

Egomorphism mediating discussion about plant physiology 49

Conclusion 55

CHAPTER IV – “DON’T SAY YUK, SAY UHM.” AN ANALYSIS OF

INTERJECTIONS AS STUDENT’S COMMUNICATIVE, PARTICIPATIVE

AND COGNITIVE PRACTICES DURING SCIENCE FIELDTRIPS 59

Interjections in the Literature 63

Data Analysis 65

Adjective(ing) an Interjection: Students’ Communicative and Cognitive Engagement in the

Activity 66

I Say Yuk, You Say Yuk: Interjections Establishing Membership 71

Yuk: Interjections as stance 75

Discussion 78

What about fieldtrips? 80

CHAPTER V – MONOPOLIZATION DURING COMPUTER

COLLABORATIVE WORK: THE MAKING OF SCIENCE VIDEOS

PROJECTS 83

Background on Computer Collaborative Work 87

vii

Monopolization and Group Dynamics in Computer Setting 90

Findings 92

Assertion I - The path of students’ common understandings within CCW groups is influenced by the physical arrangement of students around the mediational tools 94 Assertion II – Monopolization of mediational tools as an outcome of students’ social interaction 97

Discussion 108

Notes 114

CHAPTER VI – CONCLUSION 115

Summary of the Three Studies and Major Findings 117

Study I - Egomorphism in simple words: Discursive pedagogical artifact in/for science education 117 Study II - “Don’t say yuk, say hum.” An analysis of interjections as students’ communicative, participative and cognitive practices during science fieldtrips 119 Study III - Monopolization during computer collaborative work: the making of science video

projects 123

In Closing 125

Implications 126

Implications of individual studies 128

Implications for science fieldtrips 129

Implications for computer collaborative work (CCW) 130

viii

REFERENCES 132

APPENDIX I – IMOVIE™ TUTORIAL 143

APPENDIX II – EXAMPLE OF A BOOKLET USED BY STUDENTS DURING

THE FIELDTRIPS 148

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figures in Chapter I Figure 1.1………. Figure 1.2………. Figures in Chapter II Figure 2.1………. Figures in Chapter V Figure 5.1………. Figure 5.2………. Figure 5.3………. Figure 5.4………. Figure 5.5………. 7 11 26 94 96 100 102 105

x Acknowledgments

The completion of this thesis was only possible with the support of numerous professors, friends, students and teachers who kindly agreed to be part of my research. Wolff-Michael Roth warrants special mention because amongst all the “no-s” I received from others, he gave me the only “yes” I was looking for to enter in this endeavor. For that, I give him my admiration as a professor and researcher.

My sincere gratitude to,

The three most important women in my life: Marly, Marlene and Marianna that, despite the distance, provided me with emotional and occasionally financial support. I will never forget the innumerous late nights that we silently cried on the phone. More than love, what I feel for these three women cannot be expressed in English words. “Saudade,” a word that exists only in my mother tongue, is what I feel for them every single day of my life.

Bruce, for his understanding, caring, and devotion. He has been both supportive and forgiving for the many times I was too busy in my own world, and did not take enough time and care for his world, which for the last three years, became my world too.

xi

Palita de Fosforo, my soul sister. I adore her “orange aura” and her hippie way of facing the world.

Jujucas, my other family, thank you for accepting me as I am into your world, making me feel at home and always being available for me whenever I needed.

Lilica and Juca, I would never reach this far without their guidance and

friendship. Thank you both for answering my calls no matter how late it was. Thank you for showing me the way. You both are my examples of “how to do it.”

Chang, “minha baleinha,” when I felt the world falling apart, she hugged me and cried with me. That moment, I understood that she is my guardian angel.

Thiago, April and Paul Murphy, Kimmy, Mike, David Tillson, Patricia, Joyce, Eunice, Alvaro, Fabiane, Druida, Glenn, Marianne, Margot, my good friends. The CHATers (Ian, Diego, Leanna, Pei-Ling, Gholamreza, Sung-Won, Michiel, Eduardo, Maria Ines), everyone from a different culture, a different part of the world, yet

somehow, we manage to work together and create our little world, called the CHAT lab. Thank you for the acceptance.

The secretaries from the curriculum and instruction department and from the graduate studies department, who make the life of graduate students way easier.

xii

The teacher, Mr. MacBeth (pseudonym) and the 25 students who welcomed me into their classroom. To maintain their anonymity, I cannot cite their names here, but I would like them to know that I am very grateful for their sharing time, joy and

willingness to help me throughout. We had so much fun together, during our movie production.

Peixoto, who, before I moved to Canada, spent time feeding my dreams of living abroad telling me stories about this wonderland. Thank you also, Sean, who helped this dream come true.

Isabela Asmina and Molly Aparecida, for putting a smile on my face whenever I am sad. Both of them always remind me about the beauty of the little things. Their joy makes every single hour of my day, completely worthwhile. They are my real example of

egomorphism.

Centre for Research in Youth, Science Teaching and Learning (CRYSTAL) group, which is supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), without which this study would not have been possible.

This positive energy that I call God that keep me sane, healthy and always put me in the right place, at the right time.

xiii

I wish you all the best in your own personal journeys; hopefully I can be part of them sometimes, and thank you all for being part of my own journey and everyday thoughts. My dreams would never become true without you.

xiv

xv

I was now so much bigger that I could not see myself anymore. As big as a landscape in the distance. I was in the distance. More perceptible in my ultimate mountains and in my most remote rivers. How can I say it, if not timidly like this: life is itself myself. Life is itself myself, and I don't understand what I say. And then I adore. (Clarice Lispector)

2

Studying science concepts in contexts involving out-of-classroom experiences of learners is consistent with the notion of humanizing and promoting meaningful learning in culturally and appropriate ways. (Koosimile, 2004, p. 483)

***

This thesis is formed by three studies that explore teacher-student and student-student interactions during science out-of-classroom activities. Using interaction analysis and discourse analysis as method for data analyzes, I take a cultural-historical approach to understand how participants from elementary schools interact amongst themselves when they are engaged in collaborative work. Videotapes of science fieldtrips,

videotaped computer sessions in which students worked collaboratively to produce short digital videos about their fieldtrips, and my fieldnotes form my database.

The main body of this thesis consists of three studies. The first study is concerned with the role of egomorphism, the tendency to ascribe to others, aspects and abilities of oneself, in the context of science lessons. I show how egomorphism functions as a hybrid language employed by science educators to mediate scientific concepts through a non-scientific language. In the second study, I investigate how interjections, such as “yuk,” mediate students’ interactions during science fieldtrips. The third study shows how monopolization of the mediational tools (e.g., computers and their components) emerges during collaborative work, when students are engaged in a video production about their experiences during science fieldtrips. These studies represent three different yet

3

interrelated aspects of how teacher and students interact amongst themselves during out-of-classroom science activities.

In this introductory chapter I articulate my personal motivations, in the form of a brief autobiography, for engaging in this research. I provide background on the

interdisciplinary research project (NSERC-CRYSTAL), within which my study was situated. I present the definition of fieldtrips, which I use throughout this thesis and finally, I provide an outline of the three studies that constitute this thesis, and articulate how they are interrelated.

Autobiography

In 1997 I was a motivated and curious 17-year-old student when I was accepted at the Universidade Católica de Goiás (Catholic University of Goiás) as a full time student. There I pursued a bachelor’s degree in biology and concomitantly a teaching certificate with a focus on environmental education. During my first year of studies I began my professional career as a researcher in biotechnology and medical genetics at two different molecular biology research centers in Brazil. As a result, I was left only with the

unfortunate choice of having to set my teaching career aside for the first years of my university studies.

When I finally reached my last year of study I needed to take two courses to receive my teaching certificate: Practicum of Biology Teaching I and II. These courses gave me the opportunity to teach for over a year in public elementary and high schools in Brazil. Upon registering for my courses, I met Professor Yone Orcantina, who would

4

become my mentor during my practicum and who coincidently had been my science teacher in seventh grade.

I shared with Professor Orcantina my concerns about teaching and how I was intimidated by the idea of conducting science lessons with students of different ages, backgrounds, and so on. Professor Orcantina responded by suggesting that I try it for a week only, after which she guaranteed that once I started teaching I would never give it up. I returned to my genetics lab thinking how “silly” the Professor was and I decided to give it a chance. After all, it was my final year and the remaining two courses I needed to graduate.

Professor Orcantina was right. I commenced my first year of professional teaching in 2000 where I taught science and biology at a public school in my hometown Goiania. After graduating I was delighted to find a job as a part time seventh-grade teacher at a high school called Colégio Didático in an impoverished area of Brazil. To further supplement my income, I worked part time doing genetics research at a medical institute in the metropolitan area of the city. I held these two jobs until 2003 when I moved to Canada to pursue a master’s degree in biology, with a focus on population genetics at the University of Victoria.

After almost a year in the graduate program, I found myself struggling in the genetics laboratory. It was a cold winter evening; I was alone and missing my warm classroom, my students, and their energy and enthusiasm. My mind was focused not on the test tube with DNA but elsewhere in another time in the past, when I was teaching in Brazil. It was there at Colégio Didático where my passion for teaching became grounded.

5

It was at that moment I realized I needed to leave my current program in population genetics and enter graduate studies in the field of education. After an exhaustive search I found myself drawn to a new master’s program in science education under supervision of Wolff-Michael Roth, who gave me support and freedom to engage in the work I liked the most. I was no longer alone in a genetics laboratory; I became surrounded by youth learning science in the outdoors.

My passion for learning in the outdoors first began to develop when I taught seventh grade at the Colégio Didático. During science lessons I found myself struggling with material resources. Since it was a public school, students and teachers had to rely on government funding to acquire textbooks, notebooks, and other school materials. Funding for fieldtrips to local parks or museums was something that never existed in that school. My science lessons were directly affected by the lack of funding for the school and problems with science laboratories and computer rooms. For this reason, I decided to bring my students to where science really happened: in our daily lives. Numerous times we studied botany in my mom’s backyard. Other times I would find the children learning concepts of physics and chemistry in my own kitchen, or having the opportunity to experience wildlife during visits to the local zoo. During our time outside the classroom I noticed that the students would interact with each other more often. They would laugh, take notes, and jump at every opportunity to touch their objects of study. Since they were learning in my own kitchen or my mom’s backyard, I was able to become a part of the process and was left with a feeling of immense satisfaction. For these reasons I decided to focus my studies on how elementary students interact amongst themselves during

out-of-6

classroom experiences. And that is the reason I began my collaboration with the Pacific CRYSTAL project.

The Pacific CRYSTAL Project and my Contribution to the “Big Picture” The Pacific CRYSTAL (Centre for Research in Youth, Science Teaching, and Learning)1

is formed by directors, co-directors, an executive committee, and an international board for collaborative research in teaching and learning science,

engineering, social sciences, and humanities at the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University, Malaspina University-College, school districts in British Columbia, and non-governmental Canadian agencies. This is an ongoing project that aims to provide

authentic science experiences to students (Roth, 1995). Broadly, the Pacific CRYSTAL

project consists of three nodes concerned with scientific and technological teaching and learning. The first node explores authentic science opportunities for youth; the second is concerned with classroom-based studies of teaching, assessment and technological application; the third node investigates science programs in lighthouse schools.2

My research was conducted within Node 1, which was designed to provide authentic science experiences to students and research how they learn in the process. Node 1 deals with different areas of expertise such as science fieldtrips, mathematics, and environmental

1 _{The Pacific CRYSTAL project is funded by NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council} of Canada).

2 _{In the context of the Pacific CRYSTAL project a lighthouse school is a school that serves as a test site and} leader in the development of pedagogies that promote science literacy. Lighthouse schools technically are part of Node 3.

7

education. My data were collected in the context of a lighthouse school (Blueberry Field Elementary School [pseudonym]) where I investigated how students and teachers from public schools interact amongst themselves during out-of-classroom science activities, when they have technology (e.g., camcorders and computers) mediating their science learning.

A giant funnel represents my conceptualization of the relationship between my project and Pacific CRYSTAL: Pacific CRYSTAL forms the large opening of the funnel (large scale) narrowing towards my individual research (Figure 1.1). As big as the Pacific CRYSTAL is, from my perspective we are only able to understand the big picture if we break it down into smaller pieces. Thus, through understanding these small parts, a better understanding of these parts as a whole can be constructed.

Figure 1.1. This diagram illustrates where my thesis fits within the Pacific CRYSTAL project as a whole. The Pacific CRYSTAL project consists of three nodes. My research deals with how elementary students

8

and teachers interact during science fieldtrips (Node 1). I conducted my fieldwork at Blueberry Field Elementary School where a group of 25 students engaged in the production of digital videos about their science fieldtrips. Using discourse analysis, interaction analysis and a cultural-historical approach I explored student-student and teacher-student interactions during out-of-classroom activities.

Definition of Fieldtrips

For the purpose of this thesis I borrow a definition of fieldtrips according to which a fieldtrip is “any journey taken under auspices of the school for educational purposes” (Prather, 1989, p. 10). In this context and as I articulate further in this thesis, due to the hands-on nature of fieldtrips, students interact with peers freely and communicate with each other through a more informal language, such as interjections, which are suited for the context in which students are embedded in (e.g., fieldtrips). Additionally, studies also agree on the benefits of learning science out-of-classroom because the outdoors is a more inspiring, appealing, and pleasant environment (Ramey-Gassert, 1997).

Outline of the Three Studies

The results of my research are presented in the form of independent yet

interconnected three studies that focus on teacher’s and students’ interactions during out-of-classroom science activities (e.g., science fieldtrips and computer environment). In my first study, “Egomorphism as simple words: Discursive pedagogical artifact in/for

science education,” I extend the anthropological term egomorphism (Milton, 2005) to the

educational arena. Egomorphism denotes the fact that some speakers use a language suited to articulate their selves or ego to describe human understanding of non-human entities. I provide real examples extracted from my database to illustrate how science

9

educators mediate science concepts through the use of egomorphism. The episodes I present were collected during science fieldtrips and computer sessions. In this study, I conclude that egomorphism, which has not been used in education before, is a hybrid language (e.g., scientific and non-scientific) employed by educators that mediate students’ understanding of natural phenomena. Such hybrid languages have been theorized to be necessary parts of learning process rather than issues (Roth, 2008).

My second study, “’Don’t say yuk, say hum,’ an analysis of interjections as

students’ communicative, participative and cognitive practices during fieldtrips” deals

with the use of interjections during science fieldtrips and how they mediate students’ interactions. Data for this study were collected during a daylong fieldtrip at a park in British Columbia where students had the opportunity to learn about the local environment (e.g., wetlands). In this study, I analyze how the interjection “yuk” mediates students’ interactions during science fieldtrips. I conclude that interjections constitute

communicative acts that signalize to the teacher and peers that the object of study was seen/heard, rather than exclusively an expression of student’s feelings and emotions as the current literature suggests (e.g., Ameka, 1992; Wierzbick, 1992).

The third study in this thesis, “Monopolization during computer collaborative

work: The making of a science video project,” explores monopolization of mediational

tools within collaborative working groups. For this study I analyzed the interactions that occurred within groups of students when working collaboratively on the production of digital videos of the highlights of their science fieldtrips. More specifically, this study explores monopolization of mediational tools (e.g., computer and its components) during

10

collaborative work. I conclude that monopolization, which occurs within a collaborative working group, is not an attribute of individuals but is sustained through interactions amongst participants. Moreover, my analysis reveals that the physical arrangement of group members around the mediation tools provides a unique flow of information (e.g., students’ mutual understanding) from the working groups to the computer.

Integration of the Three Studies

The core chapters of this thesis are formed by three studies written for publication in peer-reviewed journals and as such are oriented towards different audiences.

Therefore, the structure of this thesis is not chronological or linear and does not read as a progression. These three studies are interrelated, because first they all deal with the same theme. For instance, as illustrated in Figure 1.2, throughout this thesis I articulate how students’ and teacher’s language mediate their interactions when they work

collaboratively during out-of-classroom science projects in the presence of technology (e.g., camcorders and computers). Hence, my study starts from the moment that the groups of students are shooting their videos about their fieldtrip until the time that they are working collaboratively on editing their videos in the computer laboratory. Second, throughout my research I used the same theory, participants, and methods of data

collection and analysis for all three studies. In other words, the use of interaction analysis and discourse analysis as method and a cultural-historical perspective to conduct data analysis, as well as the general significance of my findings to science and environmental education are what bring the individual chapters into cohesive focus. Collectively, these three studies have implications for science education in general and science teachers in

11

particular. For instance, they all address important issues related to how participants interact amongst themselves and with the tools that mediate their actions during out-of-classroom science activities.

Figure 1.2. This diagram illustrates the three core chapters of this thesis and how they are interrelated. Study 1 extends the term egomorphism to the science education arena. Study 2 discusses the role of interjections during out-of-classroom activities and Study 3 explores monopolization of mediational tools during collaborative work in a computer environment. These three studies are interrelated first through their themes, because I articulate how through peer collaboration, students’ and teacher’s language mediate their interactions during out-of-school science experiences. Secondly, I use the same methodology and

12

In this thesis, I describe and articulate three different phenomena (e.g.,

egomorphism, as a hybrid language that mediates teachers’ talk about scientific concepts, interjections mediating students’ interactions during science fieldtrips, and

monopolization of the working tools within collaborative work). Even though my analyses focus on what I observed in one classroom throughout a school year, my findings are not taken to be isolated phenomena, because they are the concretization of real cultural-historical possibilities that participants may find themselves in.

13

14

In this chapter, I first provide definitions of important terms used throughout this thesis. I then briefly introduce the school, the research participants, and how I engaged with them. I also describe how the data were collected and prepared for analysis. Finally, I describe the theoretical framework that guided my analysis and methods through the three studies. Likewise, validity is discussed to assure that my data analysis and overall research have met an expected quality standard for work of this nature.

Important Definitions

In this section I provide a brief explanation of important terms employed throughout, as this may be useful for the reading of the following three chapters.

Anthropomorphism: Is concerned with how people represent non-human animals by attributing (only) human characteristics to them.

Assertion: A statement resulting from the analysis of the data

Authentic science: The science carried out by scientists and researchers who work in a science laboratory or field.

Community of practice: A group of individuals that interact with each other sharing their ideas (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Discourse: The term “discourse” has become common part in a variety of disciplines: critical theory, sociology, linguistics, philosophy, social psychology and many other fields. Discourse is a social practice including many forms of talking or writing constituting a cultural organization. For example, when I conducted analysis of participants’ discourse, in fact, I described and articulated what my research participants made available to me in the form of verbal communication and non-verbal

15

communication. In my research, oral discourse is a crucial means of communication among students and teacher during the course of their activities, which reinforces my interest in the analysis of discourse.

Egomorphism: Denotes how one’s self or ego understand the environment (e.g., animals and plants) based on personal previous relationship with it.

Participant observation: Is a set of research strategies, which aim to gain a close and intimate familiarity with a given group of individuals (e.g., a school or a classroom) and their practices through meticulous involvement with participants in their natural environment.

The Research Site: Blueberry Field Elementary School

The database of all the three studies that are presented in this thesis emerged from science fieldtrips and computer sessions that I videotaped during a six-month period3 with the help of two research assistants4

at Blueberry Field Elementary School

(pseudonym). This school is one of the lighthouse schools for the CRYSTAL Project. Blueberry Field Elementary School is located in an urban area of British Columbia. Its first one-room building was erected in 1893. Over the past ten years this public school experienced unprecedented growth and development. At the 100th

3 _{I was a participant observer in the school for a school year (from September 2005 to June 2006).} However, I videotaped the activities from November 23rd_{, 2005 to May 30}th_{, 2006.}

4 _{I would like to thank Ian Stith and Giuliano Reis for their assistance in videotaping the fieldtrips as well} as the computer sessions.

16

anniversary of the school, there were over 300 students housed in the school and seven portable classrooms situated on the playing field. Today, Blueberry Field Elementary School has 16 classes, from kindergarten to fifth grade. The first-class facilities on site include a gym, library, and computer lab for the 286 students and 31 staff members.

I negotiated my presence in the school directly with the school administration, Mr. MacBeth, and his students. The students were required to obtain written consent to participate in this study from their parents or legal guardians. Additionally, with the permission of Mr. MacBeth, I was able to observe the science lessons that took place in his classroom, videotape science fieldtrips, and conduct computer sessions where I tutored students throughout the digital science video production.

Research Participants

My first contact at the school was with Mr. MacBeth, to whom I was introduced by a colleague who had previously worked with in environmental education programs introduced me. Mr. MacBeth is a teacher concerned with the environment and has extensive experience in engaging his students in science fieldtrips.

During the data collection period of my research, I observed 25 students from Mr. MacBeth’s classroom. Mr. MacBeth’s students form a heterogeneous group, within a mixed classroom (fourth and fifth grades), with male and female students. For one of the students, English is not the first language. There were also two special needs students.

All 25 of Mr. MacBeth’s students participated in my research. The teacher was responsible for organizing the fieldtrips, including the agenda and the goals of each activity. He did not participate in designing the video production per se, which included

17

the videotaping of the fieldtrips by the students and the movie edition during computer sessions. Furthermore, the teacher was not involved in the creation of the tutorial for movie edition (provided in the appendix section). The episodes I include in the following chapters are neither a reflection of the methods employed by the teacher, nor a reflection of his students’ knowledge about science. Rather, my research is concerned with real situations that real people may find themselves in.

My Engagement with Mr. MacBeth’s Students

This study was mediated through my engagement as a participant observer during Mr. MacBeth’s science lessons inside and outside the classroom environment. From our first encounter onwards, I expressed to Mr. MacBeth my personal interest in media, such as computer and production of short movies. More specifically, I was interested in

helping his students to create science digital videos, with the highlights of their fieldtrips. Mr. MacBeth was not only willing to open his classroom to me, but he was also

personally interested in research conducted on science fieldtrips. Hence he agreed to have me observing his science lessons and videotaping any science activity that would happen outside the school. He also allowed me to conduct computer sessions in which I would coach his students throughout the production of their digital videos.

My initial idea in the beginning of this project, was to capture students’ own experiences during their science fieldtrips through the use of video cameras. That was my starting point for collecting the data that would be the basis of my study. Therefore, I designed a pilot project with only two students, before expanding it to the classroom as a whole.

18

For the pilot project, the students were brought to the field, where they had a chance to learn about the life cycle of the local salmon, and the relation of salmon to the First Nation people from British Columbia, Canada. At that time, I randomly chose two students and asked them to videotape 30 minutes of their daylong fieldtrip. The reason for my request was that I was interested in understanding their feelings about their out-of-school experiences. However, as the project unfolded, and through my deeper

understanding of human interactions, I learned that it is impossible to get into people’s mind. In other words, I cannot know what students feel about their fieldtrips unless they express their feelings about it. Discursive approaches taught me that all that people make available to one another is talk (and nonverbal signs); this is what I had available too, and I learned that this is what I needed to focus on. Hence, instead of trying to analyze what students felt about their science fieldtrips, I focused my research on how participants interacted when engaged in such activities.

Data Collection

Videotaping was the primary data source for the development of this study, followed my fieldnotes as secondary source. However, in agreement with the teacher, I did not videotape his classroom science lessons, hence my fieldnotes constitute my only data source for this learning context. Mr. MacBeth did want me to videotape all the science projects that happened outside the classrooms, as well as any other activity arranged by myself, for example, the computer sessions where students worked collaboratively to create up to three minutes of science digital videos.

19

Getting ready for a fieldtrip

Mr. MacBeth usually prepared the students for the fieldtrips during their regular class time. In other words, he worked with the students to explore the topic of the fieldtrip in advance. They did homework and readings about the various subjects they would encounter in the field. For example, if their out-of-school activity was a visit to a lake where students would observe the local environment, they would first undertake research about the lake or develop small projects about it in class. In this way, the students had a sense of what to expect when they were exploring the outdoors.

Additionally, during the fieldtrips the students were supposed to work

collaboratively, and therefore they were grouped together (two to five individuals per group5

) beforehand. In this way, each student could be aware of who he or she would be working with, during the fieldtrip. Every group of students received one camcorder and they were requested to videotape a total of 30 minutes of the highlights of their

experience in the outdoors. Since most of the students had never had a chance to work with camcorders before, I brought video cameras to the school the day before the fieldtrips. In this way, the students practiced in advance the basic steps of capturing images, such as start/stop recording, zoom in/out, and so on.

5 _{The number of students per group depended on the number of camcorders I had available the day of the} fieldtrip.

20

The day of the fieldtrips

On the day of the fieldtrips, each group of students was asked to videotape up to 30 minutes of whatever they thought was interesting about their fieldtrip. Also, each group of students received a booklet that had been previously elaborated upon by the teacher. The students were expected to fill these booklets out with information about their findings during the out-of-school activity. The booklet contained questions about the local environment, figures that they were supposed to identify at the site, and information about the local environment. An example of a booklet that was given by the teacher to each group of students is contained in the appendix section.

In addition to the booklets, each group received a short questionnaire I created, in which they were asked to enter information about their working group, such as the number of the camera6

that they were using, their names, and how the group decided on what to videotape.

After the fieldtrips

After each fieldtrip, the same groups of students were reunited in the computer laboratory. Using an Apple software package (iMovie™) for movie editing, they were asked to edit their 30 minutes of footage to form a three-minute video. Since none of the students had any experience using this software, the computer sessions were conducted as follows:

6 _{Numbering the camcorders was a strategy I used to keep track of the videos produced by the students and} the groups. In this way, each group had its own corresponding camera.

21

(a) The groups of students gathered around the computer (one computer per group); (b) On the white board, I wrote detailed instructions about the software, and I personally guided the groups through the software.

(c) An iMovie™ tutorial elaborated by myself was given to each student, for

consultation as needed. An example of the tutorial is provided in the appendix section. Data Preparation

I used a digital camcorder to record the entire video production, which included the students videotaping their fieldtrips and the time they spent editing their videos in the computer room. Once the video had been made, my first step was to create a “content list,” where, right after the data collection, I made any pertinent annotation and

explication of events about the videos. In so doing, my memory was still “fresh” about the events that had happened during the data collection.

My content list was indexed by the time stamp for each videotape. Each consisted of a heading that gave identifying information, followed by a rough summary listing of events as they occurred on the tape. The content list was useful in providing me with a quick overview of the data corpus, for locating particular sequences and issues, and as a basis for doing full transcripts of particularly interesting segments.

The use of the camcorder for data collection allowed me to play the recorded material on the computer. I used iMovie™ version 3.0.3, a free software package for Apple computers, to watch the video frame-by-frame. The software allows playing videos back and forth as needed. This same software also facilitated playing the movie during transcribing. To avoid fully transcribing all 25 videotapes, I designed a coding

22

system (an Excel™ spreadsheet containing the number of the tape, the date on which it was recorded, the name of the research assistant who was responsible to videotape, and a brief description of its contents). This spreadsheet helped me to find the phenomena I was studying in any one of the 25 videotapes, which corresponded to 25 hours of video.

To facilitate the data analysis, I produced smaller (one to two minute) episodes of selected parts from the total hours of recorded material, exporting these episodes into QuickTimeTM

. Then, each QuickTime™ short episode was transcribed verbatim,

including pauses and verbal descriptions of nonverbal actions when necessary. The short videos and their respective transcripts were entered into the database, which also

contained my fieldnotes. These materials helped me to better understand teacher and students’ interactions during the unfolding of the project.

Additionally, the use of still images was helpful when I needed to evidence specific body movements. For example, as discussed in chapter 5, still images were isolated and extracted from the videos to produce the visual representation of the gestures of the students that would accompany each vignette that I produced for analytic purposes. I used a function of iMovie™

that allowed me to capture a particular frame of the video as it played, and then pasted this image to Adobe PhotoShop™

7.0 and prepared it for insertion into the text file.

Theoretical Framework

This thesis is about interactions (including verbal and non-verbal communication) of elementary teachers and students during out-of-classroom science projects, taking into account the context in which these interactions happened, as well as the tools that

23

mediated their interactions. Hence, my studies are based on an assumption that in human interaction, the subjects, the mediational tools, the division of labor, and the context where participants’ interactions happened, constitute different aspects of the same activity system, which I articulate further in this section.

In this context, my general orientation throughout my data analysis focus on understanding student-student and teacher-student interactions as these are mediated by several analytically different but interacting units (e.g., division of labor within the collaborative working groups, computer setting, fieldtrip settings as well as the

mediational tools). More so, the role of these numerous units vary from one context to another (e.g., computer laboratory and the fieldtrip), and at various stages of the project development. In other words, in both stages of development (outside or inside the school) of this project, all units are known as mediators of students and teacher’s interactions. As they are interrelated within a dynamic system, these units cannot be understood in

isolation or in a static way, because they are part of the context in which those actions took place.

In addition, to understand student-student and teacher-student interactions within the context in which these interactions happened, the three core chapters of this thesis are based on the assumption that the work done in a conversation is a social construction (Erickson, 1982). Social for the purpose of this thesis is based on the concepts of social action relationship employed by Max Weber (1978): “A social relationship may be said to exist when several people reciprocally adjust their behavior to each other with respect to the meaning which they give to it, and when this reciprocal adjustment determines the

24

form which it takes” (p. 32). That is, actions take into consideration the reactions of other individuals, considering the context that the participants are part of. Hence, in my

research, the students’ and teacher’s interactions analyzed here are meaningful only within the context in which they happened. For instance, in my study about interjections, I point out that the interjections are just meaningful when bounded to the context in which they were uttered. Therefore the interjections are seen as communicative acts, rather than the expression of people’s emotions. For example, if I take Weber’s

perspective of social actions, the interjections are the students’ reactions upon their peers’ actions, hence they are social actions in themselves.

As I am interested in understanding students’ and teacher’s interactions within the cultural, institutional and historical context where such interactions happen, the theoretical framework I used throughout is based on the concept of the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) (Leont’ev, 1981). This theory was developed from the founding work of Lev Vygotsky, and its fundamental concept is that human beings do not act directly towards the object of their actions but they rely on tools and division of labor. For instance, in my research, the students produce their digital videos relying on their peers and the technology that mediate their interactions. In other words, CHAT is based on the principles of dialectic-materialism, in the sense that humans are part of a dialectic relationship between subject (humans themselves) as biological units and their own human culture (object). Hence, I have chosen CHAT as my theoretical framework, because the structure of an activity system, for example, allows me to take into

25

assumptions about what goes on inside students’ and teacher’s heads, because actions are social, historical and situated in the context in which they happen.

Cultural-historical activity theory takes “activity” as its smallest unit of analysis (Leont’ev, 1981). Therefore, everything that an activity, like producing a science digital video, implies—students working with their peers, working with tools (e.g., camcorders, computers)—cannot be understood apart from the community, society, and culture within which they are embedded in.

More so, CHAT allowed me to outline students and teacher in a certain activity as subjects with a particular objective. In other words, CHAT gave me the chance to analyze the science fieldtrips and the computer laboratory context as a series of actions directed towards some object, such as videotaping the local environment or editing digital videos. Furthermore, in CHAT, any action is understood as a transitive relation between subject and its object of activity, which is mediated by the units (e.g., division of labor and tools) that are constitutive of the particular activity (Figure 2.1). That is, cultural-historical activity theory is based on the relation between units in an activity system. Each part of a system can only be understood in relation to all other parts—all parts are interdependent. Therefore, a change in one entity leads to a change in the whole system. As a

hypothetical example, if I take a collaborative working group of students out in the field, videotaping the highlights of their fieldtrips as my unit of analysis, the breakdown of a camera (tool), would transform the object of activity from producing a science digital video to sending the camera away to be fixed.

26

Figure 2.1. Cultural-historical activity theory (activity system) adapted from Engeström (1987).

In an activity system the subject is a person or group of people that acts toward a specific object. Without an object there is no activity. For example, science digital videos are the overall object of activity for students and teacher (subject) in the context of the computer laboratory and science fieldtrips. Their division of labor, and tools always mediates the relation between students and teacher and the object of their activity. In the science digital video project, the videos produced by students in a DVD format are the outcomes of activity that is itself mediated by: division of labor (collaborative working groups) and tools (camcorder, computers). The units of an activity are not still entities but can change as the context changes (Nardi, 1996), and this aspect of the cultural-historical approach is evident throughout my research.

The concepts of CHAT and the perspective of social action developed by Weber (1978), which I have discussed previously in this section, allowed me to understand how students and teacher interacted during science fieldtrips as well as during the computer sessions, and how their interactions vary according to those environments. As an example

27

of the fact that discourse is bounded to its context, and that the language mediates participants’ interactions, I present in chapter 3 a study about egomorphism, where I extend this term to the field of science education. In this case, teachers employ a language that is appropriate for the context (fieldtrips), since teachers may use their

selves to articulate science concepts with the students. The episodes I present in chapter 3

illustrate egomorphism, which I identify as a hybrid language (scientific and non-scientific language), mediating teacher-students interactions when they act towards a specific object (e.g., their object of study). Such hybrid language mediates students’ understanding of scientific concepts during science lessons.

I present another example of how students’ interactions vary according to the context in which they occur in chapter 4, a study about the role of interjections during science fieldtrips. There, I argue that during out-of-school experiences, students use interjections more often than within the school setting and that students’ (subject) actions are mediated through their language, in this case, through interjections. Additionally I point out that such interjections are the evidence of student’s attentiveness to the task at hand and a form of communication that is bound to the context in which it occurred.

Cultural-historical activity theory also helped me to understand teacher’s and students’ interactions throughout the entire project, when they had to share a number of tools or artifacts, such as the camcorder, the computer, the utensils they used to collect and study their biological samples, and even their language. Such tools or artifacts mediated their interactions during the science fieldtrips as well as during the computer laboratory. More so, when the students worked together to achieve their goal, which was

28

to produce digital videos with the highlights of their science fieldtrips, they indeed shared their tasks, such as videotaping (since they had available just one camcorder per group) and editing the video in the computer laboratory. In sharing their tools and the work, the students finally achieved their goal, which was to produce digital videos, which

represents the outcome of their science project. In chapter 5 I exemplify how tools mediate students’ interactions during the production of science digital videos. I present episodes that illustrate collaborative working groups gathering around the computer sharing their tasks and their tools. In this study, I articulate the path of students’ mutual understandings within working groups. Such mutual understandings goes from the group itself, to one specific student (the one who sits closer to the tools [computer and its components]), then is processed into the computer to be further finalized in a DVD format, which is the outcome of the group task.

In the next sections I describe the methods (e.g. interaction analysis and discourse analysis) I used to analyze the episodes that comprise my database, also articulating the reasons for following such methods. Finally I discuss the credibility of qualitative methods of research.

Interaction Analysis: A Collaborative Method

I began my data analysis by reviewing my data sources collaboratively with my research group, which was composed of nine other graduate students, and in cooperation with my supervisor (Wolff-Michael Roth). During these meetings, I set up interaction analysis sessions (Jordan & Henderson, 1995), which form an interdisciplinary, collective method to investigate the interactions of human beings (e.g., teacher and students) with

29

each other (e.g., talk, nonverbal communication) and with the objects in their environment (e.g., camcorders and computers) within the context in which such

interactions happen. More so, interaction analysis is a reflexive form of analysis in which my research group and me not only analyzed students’ and teacher’s interactions, but we did it collaboratively.

During our group meetings, which were video-recorded, I attempted to keep my work, to the largest extent possible, free from predetermined categories or assertions about the data. I expected such categories or assertions to emerge out of our deepening understanding of the participants’ interactions. Hence, I developed my categories or assertions together with my research group as our group analysis developed. During our meetings, the videos were stopped whenever a participant found something (e.g., an event) worthy to remark. The event was reviewed as often as necessary so that each tentative assertion could be fully explored by all members of our research group. Through the multiple replaying the videos, improved levels of students’ and teacher’s interactions were explored. As my categories and assertions developed, so did my analytic approach, which allowed me to explore verbal and non-verbal communication depending on my research claim. During our meetings, several assertions were produced. I then returned to the data to attempt to revise them.

In the second and further meetings for collective analysis, additional themes were explored in the same manner as above. I subsequently refined the assertions through the writing process and revising the data back and forth.

30

Transcriptions

As a particular video segment emerged as significant during our meetings, I expanded my content lists into transcriptions. My transcriptions were more or less rich in details depending on the nature of my research claims, and this is noticeable throughout my three studies. The transcriptions presented in chapter 3 are less rich in details than those in chapters 4 and 5. In the study presented in chapter 3, where I expand the concepts of egomorphism to the field of science education, body movements of participants, for example, are irrelevant. In chapters 4 and 5, I am interested in how interjections mediate students’ talk during science fieldtrips and monopolization of the mediational tools during collaborative work, respectively. Hence nonverbal

communication, such as changes in body position, gaze, gesture, and so on, are useful to the understanding of teacher and students’ interaction.

Why interaction analysis?

I chose interaction analysis as a method for analyzing my videos because of its nature (collaborative work). When I first started my data analysis I was a novice in this type of research, and interaction analysis is best learned by doing it collaboratively (Jordan & Henderson, 1995). Hence, as part of my apprenticeship, I was gradually socialized into an ongoing community of practice where I increasingly participated in the work of analysis, of the activities studied. Additionally, collective analysis, such as interaction analysis is a powerful tool for neutralizing preconceived notions on the part of individual researchers. The collaborative viewing of data, minimizes the tendency

31

researchers have to see what they are conditioned to see. We are alsoconfronted with different ways of seeing it. Thus, I ascertained that my analysis met the highest scholarly standards.

Discourse Analysis: The Context Matters

In conjunction with interaction analysis, throughout the three studies that form this thesis, I used discourse analysis (Edwards & Potter, 1992) as an analytical tool for interpreting the videotaped fieldtrips as well as the videotaped computer sessions that I conducted with the students. Discourse analysis as an analytical tool (e.g., Roth & Alexander, 1997); help me to understand teacher and students’ interactions during their science out-of-classroom activities.

Discourse is indeed a central part of our lives, and what we do with others is always mediated through some kind of communication. Hence, discourse itself is related to social interactions, including different forms of talking, writing, or performing actions. Based on this premise discourse both in the classroom and in out-of-classroom activities becomes an important tool that mediates communication amongst teacher and students. Therefore, analyzing discourse that happens during science lessons is useful in

understanding how teacher and students interact amongst themselves, hence, contributing to the understanding of teaching and learning in different settings (e.g., computer

laboratory and fieldtrips).

In this context, discourse analysis is an approach to the understanding of such natural talk, writing, or actions performed, in the context that such events happen. Such approach was first developed by the sociologists Gilbert and Mulkay (1984) to study

32

scientists’ talk during discussion about biochemistry issues. Later, one of Mulkay’s post-graduate students, Jonathan Potter, who had a psychology background, used discourse analysis to examine issues within social psychology. Nowadays, discourse analysis draws from methods in a wide range of fields, such as anthropology, philosophy, and sociology.

Discourse analysis, is the study of language in use, in the sense that language, in the same manner of CHAT, cannot be understood apart from the context in which it is used, thus the researcher must be able to understand the context. Hence, the object of analysis is hardly a single sentence. Instead, larger texts and video recordings, provide major data, which is focused on speaker’s hesitations, repetitions, incomplete utters, and so on. In the case of my research, these discourse features are indeed relevant and are in fact the focus of my study. In this scenario, the analysis of discourse I conducted

throughout the three core chapters made available to me the ways in which discourse is central of students’ and teacher’s interactions.

In practice, the process of discourse analysis could be generally split into different stages that are not sequential steps but phases (Potter & Wetherell, 1987):

Setting assertions: My assertions were generated during the collaborative viewing of videotapes accompanied by respective transcripts, which happened during our research group meetings. These meetings were always recorded, which gave me opportunity to refer to the videos as many times as needed. Having no pre-determined categories or assertions, throughout the viewing of the videos, I gave priority to discourse as it happened in the videos (I described and articulated only what is shown in videos). My

33

assertions were refined as we watched and discussed the events that appeared in the videos as well as through my writings process.

Sample size: The sample size depended on the specific assertion or category. The success of a discourse study is not dependent on the sample size (e.g., length of video). For example, the videos I analyzed throughout are less than a minute long.

Collection of records and documents: By collecting documents from many sources, it is possible to build up a more accurate description of the way participants’ linguistic practices are organized compared to one source alone. Therefore, I made sure that I videotaped as many groups of students working collaboratively as possible. For example, there were computer sessions in which the camera was capturing the computer lab as a whole. Other sessions, the camcorder was focused in one single group. I also made sure I videotaped groups of five individuals, groups of two individuals and so on. Finally, I also videotaped the interviews that I conducted with the students after the conclusion of their science video projects. By doing that, I expanded my understanding of how participants interacted in the way they did.

Transcription: The content of my transcripts depended on what I intended to articulate. In general, the ratio of video time to transcription time was about one to ten. Which means that ten minutes of video took about one hour to transcribe. However, this ratio also depended on the detail of the transcription.

Coding: As an example of coding, in chapter 3, my transcripts were coded in a way that I could separate my excerpts into two different categories: (a) episodes

34

could easily identify the phenomena of study. In chapter 4, I coded the interjections in two categories: (a) interjections that were uttered inside the computer laboratory, and (b) interjections that were uttered during the fieldtrips. In this way, I was able to affirm that during the science fieldtrips, students uttered more interjections than during the activities that happened inside the computer laboratory. In chapter 5, a coding system helped me to identify verbal and non-verbal communication employed by participants when they were working collaboratively in the computer room. The goal of coding, therefore, is not to find results but to compress the large body of discourse into manageable parts.

Analysis: During my data analysis, I did a lot of careful reading and re-readings of the transcripts and watched the videos over and over again (videos about our

collaborative research group meetings and the ones that referred to the assertions I was investigating). While watching the videos and reading the transcriptions, I searched for patterns in both inconsistency and regularity of events. For example, in my study about egomorphism, I searched for the same phenomenon repeated in different videotaped fieldtrips.

Validation: For validation of the discourse analysis I conducted, I followed two main techniques: (a) coherence, which is concerned with how the discourse fits together; and (b) participants’ orientation: through the interviews I conducted with students, I could also access their views about the project as a whole.

35

Theoretical principles of discourse analysis

The approach that I took through my three studies is concerned with social interactions amongst teacher and students. Such an approach has three fundamental principles (Potter, 2003).

Discourse is action-oriented: Discourse analysis is concerned with actions, hence, discourse itself is just meaningful when it is socially, culturally and historically bounded to the context in which it happens. Therefore, discourse analysis is about uncovering what is hidden in people’s actions.

Discourse is situated: Discourse is a social action. The concern with the occasioning of speech is related with the concern with action; actions do not hang in space, but are responses to other actions, and they in turn set the environment for new actions to happen. For example, greetings follow greetings, acceptances follow invitations, and so on.

Why discourse analysis?

I had decided for discourse analysis as method of analysis, first because I approached fieldwork without any pre-categorization of students’ and teacher’s discourses. Second because it allows me to understand how what research participants say is supported in a way that it becomes uncontroversial rather than just focusing on

what is being said. The fact that I was able to describe how participants interact during

36

point out that discourse analysis is a powerful method for environmental education research.

Why interaction analysis and discourse analysis “partnership”?

I have decided to use interaction analysis in conjunction with discourse analysis as method to analyze teacher-student and student-student interaction during out-of-classroom projects, because both interaction and discourse analysis are based on the assumption that human interactions are grounded in social environment (Jordan & Henderson, 1995). That is, learning is not located in the students’ heads; rather it is situated in their interactions.

Having a cultural-historical perspective, this thesis as a whole is not about specifically egomorphism, interjections, nor monopolization. My writings are about real situations that elementary science students and science teachers may find themselves in during out-of-classroom activities. Hence, the three studies that form this thesis are about interactions of students and teachers during science fieldtrips, and discourse analysis helps me to understand such interactions.

Credibility of qualitative research

The use of camcorders for data collection is a powerful resource to ascertain credibility of qualitative research. Videotaping, gave me the chance to play over and over again events that happened in the past, and the chance to re-examine it as much as I needed. Hence, I took recourse to the video as a final authority. The use of videos

37

teacher and students say they perform and what they really perform. It also provides me with optimal data when I am interested in what “really” happened during my research participant’s social interactions. Watching the videos collaboratively is a powerful strategy, because it neutralizes preconceived notions on the part of the researcher. Additionally, inferences about what is happening on the videotape pertaining to what participants think (unless they say what they think) are not relevant in both interaction and discourse analysis.

The fact that I did all my transcriptions myself, allowed me to gain to substantive analytic insights during transcription. What has emerged from watching the videos over and over allowed me to extend and detail my transcription, which guided me throughout the deeper understanding of my data.

Finally, to further establish the credibility of qualitative research, I used several techniques from fourth-generation evaluation (Guba & Lincoln, 1989), such as:

Prolonged engagement: To avoid data misunderstanding, involvement with research participants is recommended. Thus, I spent several hours with the students at the school and I participated in five science related fieldtrips, four non-science

out-of-classroom activities, and conducted 15 computer sessions (45 minutes each).

Persistent observation: To identity features of teacher and students’ interactions that are relevant to the research claims, consistent observations are suggested. Thus, the recordings that composes my dataset amount to over 25 hours, from different activities the students were engaged in.

38

Peer debriefing: To facilitate testing research claims and to set next research steps, discussion with peers are suggested. In this sense, the use of interaction analysis provided me with the opportunities to exercise this practice.

Progressive subjectivity: To avoid the situation in which the researcher finds only what he or she expected to find. This was also effectuated through interaction analysis sessions with our research group, as articulated earlier.

39

Chapter III – Egomorphism in simple words: Discursive pedagogical

artifact in/for science education

40

In the present chapter, I expand the concept of egomorphism to the field of science education. Egomorphism determines that humans understand their environment through their own personal experience (i.e., this understanding is achieved by perceiving human characteristics in non-human entities), and that the speaker’s self or ego (in the general, rather than the Freudian sense) is the focus point for such understanding (Milton, 2005). I point out that in the classroom egomorphism is associated with the fact that teachers use a language to articulate his or her self or ego to understand their object of study (e.g., animals and plants). In so doing, teachers open the opportunity for students to perceive their own selves and egos in their object of study as well. Hence, I claim that egomorphism in the classroom is an appropriate term to use to refer to the fact that humans understand non-human animals through individuals’ own personal experience in the sense that we, as human beings, understand our environment (e.g., non human creatures), based on our selves or ego. In other words, the understanding of non-human animals by humans is based on the perception that they (animals) are “like me” rather than “human like” (Milton, 2005). I conclude by asserting that egomorphism mediates learning by constructing a hybrid language (scientific and non-scientific) that is

appropriate to the science education context in which participants may find themselves. According to Milton (2005), who first created the term, egomorphism is different from anthropomorphism, another anthropological term, which is concerned with how people represent their environment by attributing human characteristics to it. Hence, anthropomorphism from this perspective is merely the personification of animals or plants, which is in opposition to the egomorphism perspective that implies that people